bagasme

> Postgres isn’t in any sense struggling to attract new users – there are plenty of 22 year olds defaulting to it today.

Yes, I do use Postgres for a lot of my self-hosted apps. For PHP applications, though, I keep using MariaDB as their default/only DB.

Then what would the just right "foot shaped" shoes like?

The article doesn't mention how to resolve string manipulation problem involving locales.

After I digged into related articles on the link, it seems like the holy grail to the config files dilemma is to just hard-code desired settings in the source code. However, it also means that users (especially using binary packages) are stuck with settings from the distro.

If you truly needs user-configurable setting, maybe TOML is for you.

I think that's not the point that I want to highlight. The problem, however, is some drive-by contributors have unwillingness to accept feedback (including critical reviews). When that behavior become a pattern within contributor's organization/domain, maintainers may take on the err side. For example, Linux kernel maintainers advise to not run checkpatch script on existing sources ([1], [2]). On a occasion, another maintainer had to roll out comment wording fixes after original submitter ignored the maintainer's review ([3]). And the well-known example is when an university was banned from Linux kernel development [4].

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230720134501.01f9f1de@gandalf.... [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/2023092730-shampoo-anytime-f437@... [3]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/162b5545-7d24-3cf2-9158-3100ef64... [4]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2FfM%2FTsbmcZzwnX@kroah...

As an occasional docs janitor and now helping tracking kernel regressions, I also feel "high tension blood" when I see trivial patches from random Chinese contributors, then I reviewed them but these contributors don't reply to my and others's reviews at all. Last year there were people from @cdjrlc.com domain, then this year from @208suo.com. Even some maintainers agree to block such domains [1].

The takeaway is once you submit your patches, it's your responsibility to address reviews that may come to them.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/5fcffcebca2ef9b8c276e5f4b4464d88... [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZIoDKqBt2uNSbblB@casper.infradea...

Yikes! Applying "all related" answers to the original question is mostly nonsense unless you're lucky.

Looks like ChatGPT agrees to the forum thread one way or another...

Today I asked ChatGPT about ArchLinux autoupdate. The question was:

``` As a rolling-release distro, is it recommended to perform automatic update on my Arch Linux system? ```

ChatGPT replied:

``` Yes, it is generally recommended to enable automatic updates on an Arch Linux system. Arch Linux is a rolling-release distribution, which means that it provides frequent updates to keep your system up to date with the latest software and security patches. Enabling automatic updates helps ensure that your system stays current and secure without manual intervention. However, it's still important to regularly review update logs and be cautious of any potential issues that automatic updates may introduce. ```

But when I saw Arch forum thread on above topic [1], its first answer said:

``` Bad idea, archlinux / pacman expect a human to make some decisions. You'd have to check pacman log after every "automatic update" for problems. ```

But AFAIK, you have to roll out your own autoupdate solution since there is none of such thing in pacman itself. Hence why pacman -Syu always asks me on every update.

[1]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=247428

I wasn't surprised then...

And since 2021, Google also places scraped Wikipedia articles from possibly shadow, low-end colleges operated by the same marketing group, higher than Wikipedia itself; despite these sites forget proper attribution to original Wikipedia texts [1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_co...

And when Quora also shows answers from "related" (but IMO not strictly related to the original question in question) by default, I think these answers are mostly incorrect when being applied to the original question.

Smells like that someone else were given superuser...

But what if that vendor product B got crippled (like recently Unity and today JIRA) for most of features that people deemed essential, or even vanished? People who is less fortunate has to switch to more cost-effective solutions (it may include F(L)OSS ones).

That's what I think. I guess that contributors on these sites just pull in raw MT-generated translations and post them as is, or do these sites really have human Spanish/Indonesian translators that do actual proofreading? I bet they have none.

Take an example of desdelinux case. The original article (in Spanish) reads:

``` Bueno, como es de esperarse en Gentoo, existen muchas opciones de kernel, les dejo aquí una pequeña lista para que vean mejor a lo que me refiero:

    gentoo-sources: Kernel 4.12 con parches especiales para Gentoo Linux.
    git-sources: Kernel directamente descargado desde el repositorio Git de Linus.
    vanilla-sources: Kernel completo sin ningún tipo de parche.

```

which is translated on the site as:

``` Seperti yang diharapkan di Gentoo, ada banyak opsi kernel, saya tinggalkan daftar kecil di sini agar Anda dapat memahami dengan lebih baik apa yang saya maksud:

    sumber gentoo: Kernel 4.12 dengan patch khusus untuk Gentoo Linux.
    git-sumber: Kernel langsung diunduh dari gudang Linus Git.
    vanilla-sumbersource: Kernel penuh tanpa patch apapun.

```

Notice that linux sources package names (gentoo-sources, git-sources, and vanilla-sources) are translated despite being proper names, which should not be in this case.

Whereas Google Translate renders the translated passage as:

``` Seperti yang diharapkan di Gentoo, ada banyak opsi kernel, berikut adalah daftar kecilnya sehingga Anda dapat lebih memahami maksud saya:

     gentoo-sources: Kernel 4.12 dengan patch khusus untuk Gentoo Linux.
     git-sources: Kernel diunduh langsung dari repositori Git Linus.
     vanilla-sources: Kernel lengkap tanpa patch apa pun.

```

For more natural and flowing translation, I'd like to write it instead as:

``` Seperti yang diharapkan, ada banyak pilihan kode sumber kernel di Gentoo. Beberapa diantaranya:

     gentoo-sources: Kernel versi 4.12 dengan tambalan spesifik untuk Gentoo.
     git-sources: Kernel dengan potret langsung dari repositori Linus.
     vanilla-sources: Rilis kernel asli tanpa tambalan apapun.

```

These intricacies above reminds me of biblical translation context. Translation can be done in either formal equivalence (word-by-word like NASB and ESV) or dynamic equivalence (thought-by-thought as in NIV and NLT). The former seeks to stay close to original language's wording, but may produce stiff target language text. The latter tries to convey meaning of original language in more readable target language text by making use of context interpretation, which if it is done poorly, can divert actual meaning from the original.

Thanks for the reply.

Another case that scratches my itch was when I take a look on Spanish Linux-themed sites with Indonesian translation (as appeared on first page of Google search results). The translated text looks like stiff, gibberish/incomprehensible, and too formal. It reminds me of statistical machine translation (SMT) output, or is the text really MT-generated?

Examples: [1], [2], and [3].

On the side note, all these sites have a similar design and layout, which makes me wonder if these come from the same organization/group or not. And even these sites' title is also translated, which further raise the alarm.

End result? Here be dragons: visit these sites with a grain of salt.

[1]: https://blog.desdelinux.net/id/gentoo-sources-arm-kernel-tan... [2]: https://ubunlog.com/id/linux-6-6-rc1-sekarang-tersedia-denga... [3]: https://www.linuxadictos.com/id/setelah-memasang-fedora-26.h...

Yikes! I mean ChatGPT-style search engine is more fit for noobs and the faint-of-heart people (the ones with nothing in the world for them IMO).

I wasn't shocked, indeed because still stumbled on known issues (like giving false answer on otherwise right context).

What I think as the most epic and hype Golden Buzzer in the Got Talent history.

I guess this is a defensive move against being inadvertently used for ChatGPT model.

I also made the switch to Debian because I want to get closer to Ubuntu's origin. And when Ubuntu decided to only provide security updates to core applications (and leaving "universe" package users like ImageMagick vulnerable unless they were subscribed to Ubuntu Pro), my migration was the right thing to do. I still do installing snaps (and messing with LXD), though...

From a CBS article:

"I think that is part of what is making it difficult for the untrained ear to differentiate between these AI-generated and non-AI generated tunes," music journalist Hattie Lindert told CBS News on Tuesday. "It's pretty convincing when there are so many Drake tracks that AI can train from."

IMO that's another example of plagiarism, right?

In context of SO, garbage in garbage out (GIGO) applies. That is, many ChatGPT-generated answers look "almost" correct but actually they aren't. While many of SO answers which might became data model for the bot training are high-quality and correct, there are many other answers which are questionable (low-quality posts). Also, bots (ChatGPT included) don't take and understand surrounding context like humans do. So, without context, no matter how good something is, people with subject-matter expertise can (and will) see the fishy behind it.

So recently I search for Elle Kaye images on Bing. To the surprise, I got Marina Kaye as related search suggestion instead.